After reading the 2/10/08 Finger Lakes Time article, "SF may reject $250K state grant" I am prompted to admonish this Village administration for the misleading, if not outright deceptive, statements offered as explanation for possibly refusing a $250,000 grant.
First, a little history. The Heritage Area Visitor Center, which opened in 1990, was equipped with exhibits that had a predicted useful lifespan of ten years. In 2003 a grant application for refurbishing the Visitor Center exhibits, outdoor wayside exhibits, the Visitor Center audio-visual program, and signage was awarded $250,000 in matching funds through the state's Environmental Protection Fund Heritage Area Grant Program. The application was for work to be performed at the Partridge Building site, because at that time there were no plans for relocation. It wasn't until the award was announced that "outside influences" began working to relocate the Visitor Center, particularly to the Seneca Knitting Mill to bolster that seemingly stalled development.
There should be no ironing "out differences... over the use of the money." The grant was written and awarded for a specific project. All grants are. This shouldn't be news to our elected officials. If it is, maybe we should be rethinking keeping them in office. The grant wasn't written for services or programming for visitors, and until the FLT article appeared there had been no public mention of an attempt to change the purpose of the grant.
The mayor referred to "too many strings" attached to the money. Having some experience in this field I am familiar with the usual EPF grant requirements. A 23 year commitment to the project is standard; a preservation covenant is standard; following legally required procurement procedures is standard; working within the parameters of the grant contract is standard; and a required 50% match is standard. These were known factors from day one. No one on the Board should be surprised by these requirements. It is starting to sound like someone had an idea about using grant funds for something beyond the contract work schedule and doesn't like being told "no."
The 2nd Ward Trustee says there are accessibility issues with the Visitor Center. However in spite of its location one level below street level, visitation at the Center was always on par with that of the National Women's Hall of Fame. New York State considers the facility fully accessible, and there is a reason the Center wasn't originally located on street level. Recognizing at the time the potential for commercial revitalization of downtown, the state and Village agreed it would be counterproductive to take up valuable street level retail space for the Center. This "wrong location" as the mayor put it was carefully considered and approved by professionals with much more experience than anyone currently involved with this project.
The mayor's comments also exhibit a lack of basic understanding of the Heritage Area concept, something Seneca Falls has been involved with for the last 30 years. The Heritage Areas Program is a delivery system for heritage tourism, in which each visitor center is a threshold, not a destination. The Visitor Center was certainly not intended to function in competition with the National Women's Hall of Fame, the Seneca Falls Historical Society, Women's Rights National Historical Park, or even the Seneca Museum. These agencies, especially the National Park, are the Seneca Falls Heritage Area's partners in promoting the rich history and developing the local resources and attractions of Seneca Falls. The Mayor and Board need to be reminded of the four goals of the Heritage Area System: education, recreation, historic preservation, and economic revitalization. These goals are not limited to the Visitor Center. The Program uses the Visitor Center as a gateway to get people not only to our museums and cultural agencies, but to our restaurants, stores, lodging, strolling through our historic neighborhoods, boating on our canal, and enjoying the waterfront.
Once upon a time, Diana Smith did appear to fully support the Heritage Area and its Visitor Center. As 4th Ward Trustee she strongly, publicly admonished former Mayor Tony Costantino for not budgeting for the Visitor Center Capital Reserve for the match for the grant. Yet as mayor, after the Board budgeted $25,000 to be deposited in that Reserve in 2004-05, Mayor Smith announced at a Heritage Area Commission meeting that she would not allow the money to be deposited in the account. She stated that she instead would have the money deposited in the General Fund Surplus. This was a unilateral decision on her part, as this action, contrary to Board approval, was not, to my knowledge, ever discussed by the full Board. However, taxpayers paid for a project in the budget, not to pad the surplus.
Another point should be brought out regarding the "need" to move the Visitor Center to the Seneca Museum. Both Mayor Smith and the current Chair of the Heritage Area Commission are members of the Board of the financially strapped Seneca Museum of Waterways and Industry. As such, their support and advocacy of such a move can be seen as a conflict of interest.
Grants are not easy to get. They take a lot of hard work on the part of the applicant, and on the part of the team of people reviewing each application for the granting agency. Every grant in every grant program has requirements and there is a basic understanding between the applicant and the agency that the rules, regulations, and requirements will be respected. If the Village Board is not going to live up to its side of the bargain, not only should they turn the grant back, but granting agencies should also in future review grant applications from Seneca Falls with a wary eye. This decision proposed by Mayor Smith can have far reaching effects that could impact not only the Village, but any not-for-profit in or outside of the Heritage Area boundaries that may seek funding through state programs. And by the way, the Village Board may want to consider saving itself more than $20,000 a year by abandoning its contracted grant writers. Paying consultants to write grants that the Village may not commit to once received is a waste of everyone's time and of taxpayer dollars.
First, a little history. The Heritage Area Visitor Center, which opened in 1990, was equipped with exhibits that had a predicted useful lifespan of ten years. In 2003 a grant application for refurbishing the Visitor Center exhibits, outdoor wayside exhibits, the Visitor Center audio-visual program, and signage was awarded $250,000 in matching funds through the state's Environmental Protection Fund Heritage Area Grant Program. The application was for work to be performed at the Partridge Building site, because at that time there were no plans for relocation. It wasn't until the award was announced that "outside influences" began working to relocate the Visitor Center, particularly to the Seneca Knitting Mill to bolster that seemingly stalled development.
There should be no ironing "out differences... over the use of the money." The grant was written and awarded for a specific project. All grants are. This shouldn't be news to our elected officials. If it is, maybe we should be rethinking keeping them in office. The grant wasn't written for services or programming for visitors, and until the FLT article appeared there had been no public mention of an attempt to change the purpose of the grant.
The mayor referred to "too many strings" attached to the money. Having some experience in this field I am familiar with the usual EPF grant requirements. A 23 year commitment to the project is standard; a preservation covenant is standard; following legally required procurement procedures is standard; working within the parameters of the grant contract is standard; and a required 50% match is standard. These were known factors from day one. No one on the Board should be surprised by these requirements. It is starting to sound like someone had an idea about using grant funds for something beyond the contract work schedule and doesn't like being told "no."
The 2nd Ward Trustee says there are accessibility issues with the Visitor Center. However in spite of its location one level below street level, visitation at the Center was always on par with that of the National Women's Hall of Fame. New York State considers the facility fully accessible, and there is a reason the Center wasn't originally located on street level. Recognizing at the time the potential for commercial revitalization of downtown, the state and Village agreed it would be counterproductive to take up valuable street level retail space for the Center. This "wrong location" as the mayor put it was carefully considered and approved by professionals with much more experience than anyone currently involved with this project.
The mayor's comments also exhibit a lack of basic understanding of the Heritage Area concept, something Seneca Falls has been involved with for the last 30 years. The Heritage Areas Program is a delivery system for heritage tourism, in which each visitor center is a threshold, not a destination. The Visitor Center was certainly not intended to function in competition with the National Women's Hall of Fame, the Seneca Falls Historical Society, Women's Rights National Historical Park, or even the Seneca Museum. These agencies, especially the National Park, are the Seneca Falls Heritage Area's partners in promoting the rich history and developing the local resources and attractions of Seneca Falls. The Mayor and Board need to be reminded of the four goals of the Heritage Area System: education, recreation, historic preservation, and economic revitalization. These goals are not limited to the Visitor Center. The Program uses the Visitor Center as a gateway to get people not only to our museums and cultural agencies, but to our restaurants, stores, lodging, strolling through our historic neighborhoods, boating on our canal, and enjoying the waterfront.
Once upon a time, Diana Smith did appear to fully support the Heritage Area and its Visitor Center. As 4th Ward Trustee she strongly, publicly admonished former Mayor Tony Costantino for not budgeting for the Visitor Center Capital Reserve for the match for the grant. Yet as mayor, after the Board budgeted $25,000 to be deposited in that Reserve in 2004-05, Mayor Smith announced at a Heritage Area Commission meeting that she would not allow the money to be deposited in the account. She stated that she instead would have the money deposited in the General Fund Surplus. This was a unilateral decision on her part, as this action, contrary to Board approval, was not, to my knowledge, ever discussed by the full Board. However, taxpayers paid for a project in the budget, not to pad the surplus.
Another point should be brought out regarding the "need" to move the Visitor Center to the Seneca Museum. Both Mayor Smith and the current Chair of the Heritage Area Commission are members of the Board of the financially strapped Seneca Museum of Waterways and Industry. As such, their support and advocacy of such a move can be seen as a conflict of interest.
Grants are not easy to get. They take a lot of hard work on the part of the applicant, and on the part of the team of people reviewing each application for the granting agency. Every grant in every grant program has requirements and there is a basic understanding between the applicant and the agency that the rules, regulations, and requirements will be respected. If the Village Board is not going to live up to its side of the bargain, not only should they turn the grant back, but granting agencies should also in future review grant applications from Seneca Falls with a wary eye. This decision proposed by Mayor Smith can have far reaching effects that could impact not only the Village, but any not-for-profit in or outside of the Heritage Area boundaries that may seek funding through state programs. And by the way, the Village Board may want to consider saving itself more than $20,000 a year by abandoning its contracted grant writers. Paying consultants to write grants that the Village may not commit to once received is a waste of everyone's time and of taxpayer dollars.
